[Sinsaba]

One of the posts in the thread about what type of action the Glock has got me to thinking.

The poster wondered why Glock calls it a "safe action" when there have been reports of ADs due to the trigger being accidently pulled.

As I understand it, the Glock simply cannot go off without a) a round in the chamber, b) being racked, and c) the trigger pulled. If any one of those criteria is not met the gun will not go off (as I understand it).

If that is true, then aren't the reported "ADs" actually "NDs"? Or is it that the Glock really isn't a safe pistol anyway.

I would like to read your comments.

[1911Tuner]

Howdy,

The Glock is no more or less safe than whomever happens to have it in hand.

Rule 3: "Keep your finger off the trigger until you are prepared for the gun to fire." More to the point...If you want the gun to fire, pull the trigger. If you don't...Don't!

If everybody would but religiously observe that one simple rule...but it seems to be beyond the comprehension of many.

Bottom line...It's a GUN. It's NOT safe.

Cheers!

[mrhuckins]

Unsafe.

I feel the trigger action makes it fairly easy to have an AD when carrying with a round in the chamber. If you carry without a round in the chamber, you are asking to lose precious seconds of time in an emergency situation. IMO.

[115grfmj]

;)

[MNine]

Spoke to a buddy of mine who is a Sgt in a major metropolitan PD that issues Glocks. He seems to think most NDs come upon disassembly since someone will drop the mag and then pull the trigger without clearing the round from the chamber. Otherwise he does not hear of many other NDs or ADs in his dept. Otherwise he raves about his Glock 22.

[Walt Sherrill]

The only TRUE accidental discharge I've heard of with a Glock had to do with something having fallen into an officer's holster, with the gun later inserted.

That "something" pressed the center of the trigger as the gun was pushed into the holster. It went bang.

All of the other accidents I've heard about seem to be a function of poor safety practices, and COULD have been a problem with just about any gun.

That same thing could have happened with some other SA/DA guns, depending on the lightness of the trigger. Five pounds or eight pounds (NY Trigger), what you usually find in Glock service weapons, isn't all THAT light.

THERE ARE A LOT OF GLOCKS out there. There are a lot of police officers carrying Glocks. Some of those police officers (not all) use their weapons 2-3 times a year, to qualify -- so that they can continue to get their pay checks. A lot of police officer (not all) aren't that familiar or comfortable with weapons. Stuff happens.

[1911Tuner]

115grfmj...LOL.

MNine...I've heard that most of the AD/ND events happen in just that way.
Training is the answer. Drop the mag...Rack the slide...Keep finger OFF the damn trigger! Problem solved.

The second most noted AD/ND comes from reholstering the gun with the finger on the trigger. Bang! A distant third is in the use of improper holsters...or no holster at all. A holster that isn't designed specifically for the Glock's unique firing system can actually pull the trigger on insertion. The pistol wasn't designed for "Mexican Carry" and it wasn't designed to be toted in Condition 3.

mrhuckins...

The problem isn't with the trigger action or any other part of the design. It's with the training, discipline, and awareness of where the trigger finger is at all times. That Glock (or Sig or Colt, etc.) is NOT your friend. It's as
dangerous as a Rattlesnake, and should be handled with that ever present
in our minds.

FWIW, I'm not a big Glock fan...Far from it. The issues that I have are largely personal, though, and have no place in a technical discussion. This is
mainly to point out that the design is solid. Most of the problems lie with the
fool rather than the tool. Incompetent people can hurt themselves with a rubber mallet in a sandbox, given enough opportunity to explore their options...

Flames extinguished...hopefully. :p

[Frandy]

Tuner said it right.

Hey, guns are not safe. They are lethal. I fear that some humans just don't want to remember the 4 rules of safe gun handling.

I have owned a Glock but they are not my cup of tea. But, I would never call them less safe than the SA or SA/DA handguns I own...so long as I observe the rules of safe handling.

Frandy, stating the obvious

[Father Knows Best]

There is no such thing as "safe" vs. "unsafe." It's a continuum, not an either/or. Some designs are safer than others.

It's also not sufficient to simply state that unintentional firings with Glocks were "negligent" discharges instead of "accidental" discharges. The design of a firearm can have a huge impact on how likely such a "negligent" discharge is. A firearm designed and built in such a way that NDs are less likely is "safer" than one designed and built in such a way that NDs are more likely.

Of course, there is also a tradeoff. A "safer" pistol, i.e., one that makes NDs less likely, typically is more complex and slower to bring into action. For example, imagine a traditional 1911 with no safety mechanisms whatever. It is always cocked but never locked. It would be extremely quick to bring into action -- no safety to disengage, no need to make sure you have the correct grip, and only an extremely short movement of the trigger required to fire it. With a light trigger, it would be even quicker and more reliable. Yet I think we would all agree it is relatively unsafe. Why? Because the likelihood of a ND with such a pistol would be very high. Sure, you could say that any unintentional discharge is "neligent" and the shooter's fault because he didn't "keep his booger hook off the bang switch", but you would also have to recognize that such a design is much less safe than one that has a manual safety or two that must be disengaged before the gun will fire. Those same safety devices, however, also make it more likely that the will not fire when needed. Safeties can break, or the shooter can forget to disengage, or just fumble them under stress.

In my humble opinion, the Glock is toward the "unsafe" end of the spectrum. Like a DAO autoloader or revolver, it will fire just by pulling the trigger. Unlike true DAOs, however, the trigger weight is fairly light (5-7 pounds, typically, vs 12-14 on most DAOs), and the arc it must move through is very small. The Glock system uses a trigger that is sort of halfway between a DAO trigger and a SA trigger, and then omits the external safeties that are universally regarded as necessary on SA designs.

I have heard of numerous instances of ADs/NDs with Glocks, many of them in the hands of police officers who have had at least a modicum of training in the safe handling of firearms. Several involve discharges while reholstering the pistol. These almost certainly involved the LEO getting sloppy with the trigger finger. Another involved an off duty LEO who dropped his Glock while unbuckling his pants in a restroom. He instinctively grabbed for it as it started to fall, and it fired. Again, he probably grabbed it in such a way as to depress the trigger. All of these instances can be dismissed by Glock proponents as being examples of "negligent" discharges. But you don't hear of such things happening -- at least nowhere near as often -- with other common LE firearms such as SIGs.

It seems to me that the Glock is certainly less "safe" for general carry than any autoloader with a reliable external safety, and is less "safe" than a true DAO with a long, heavy trigger movement. Whether that makes it "unsafe" is a matter of opinion.

Personally, I like the Glock system, and carried a Glock 26 for many years. I still use it as a BUG, but carry a 1911 cocked and locked as my primary. The Glock would be almost perfect if: (1) it was slimmer and/or more rounded, for easier and more comfortable carry and concealment; and (2) it had a reliable and easy-to-operate manual external safety.

CAVEAT -- I know that external safeties have their problems, also. Two of the biggest are: (1) they sometimes fail; and (2) they can engage/disengage unintentionally. I was taught never to rely on a mechanical safety, because any mechanical device can and does fail. Of course, certain designs are better than others. And with any external safety, there is a tradeoff between ease of engagement/disengagement (requires big control easily accessed) and protecting it from accidental engagement (requires small, protected control).

The bottom line: there is no "perfect" system. Pistol designers have to balance reliability and ease/speed of use against protection from careless handling and unintentional discharges.

[Edmond]

Could we say that Glocks are better suited for more experienced shooters?

[dhoomonyou]

A GLOCK is a gun..PERIOD
No more "safe or "unsafe" than any other gun.
Whether it's a SIG or S&W or Ruger OR a 1911 style carried cocked and locked.
Finger pulling trigger = BANG!
The best "GUN SAFETY" starts between the EARS.

[flip180]

Just get a good holster that covers the trigger and good retention and be done with it. Oh, and keep your finger off the trigger.

Flip.

[Father Knows Best]

Could we say that Glocks are better suited for more experienced shooters?

I don't think so. In some ways, they're better for less experienced shooters. They're simple to operate -- depress trigger; gun goes boom. No decocking levers or manual safeties to worry about. An inexperienced shooter may forget to disengage a safety when faced with an adrenaline-charged life-or-death situation. No one forgets to depress the trigger. That's one of the reasons I often recommend Glocks as personal defense pistols for people who don't shoot a lot. They are inexpensive, reliable and simple to operate. My first recommendation is usually a double action .38 revolver, but if they insist on an autoloader then the Glock is what I recommend.

In addition, the UDs (unintentional discharges, to use a neutral term) I hear about with Glocks typically involve LEOs. They're often relatively proficient with firearms. The average LEO may not be anywhere near as proficient as a regular IDPA or IPSC competitor, but is probably more proficient than your average armed citizen. I suspect that "familiarity breeds complacency." LEOs and "experienced shooters" who handle pistols every day may be more likely to absent-mindedly get a finger in the triggerguard. People who rarely handle firearms may well be more careful, and less likely to cause an UD.

[Walt Sherrill]

Tuner wrote:

Most of the problems lie with the fool rather than the tool. Incompetent people can hurt themselves with a rubber mallet in a sandbox, given enough opportunity to explore their options...I wish I had written that. <grin>

[Duke of Lawnchair]

I wish I had written that.

I'll claim it! :D

j/k

Tuner's post is solid and humerous to boot.

[Onmilo]

Glock handguns are suited to people trained and skilled in safe gun handling procedures, be they a newbie or an old timer.
Glocks are about as safe as a manufacturer can make a handgun without doing something stupid like requiring a Michael Jackson glove to fire the thing.
Rule 1; keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are aligned on the intended target.
Rule 2; keep you g.d. finger OFF the trigger until your sights are aligned on the intended target.
Rule 3; keep your g.d. finger off the g.d. trigger until your sights are aligned on the intended target.

[Phantom Warrior]

I started out as a new handgun shooter with a Glock 23 four years ago. Two years ago I got my permit and started carrying it. When I'm home in the summer I carry it all the time. In that time I've never had a discharge that was not planned, be it accidental or negligent.

Glocks don't have the same features in term of manual safeties or heavy trigger pulls that many other guns do. But if you ALWAYS check the chamber before you dryfire (otherwise it ain't always a dryfire) and keep your finger off the trigger when you reholster you should be fine.

Like everyone has said, Glocks are only dangerous if you don't follow the four rules.

[dasmi]

As I understand it, the Glock simply cannot go off without a) a round in the chamber, b) being racked, and c) the trigger pulled. If any one of those criteria is not met the gun will not go off (as I understand it).
That is correct.

[3rdpig]

The only gun that will be safe in the hands of in inexperienced shooter is one that's unloaded, has the action welded closed, has no ammunition, of any caliber, present, and has all sharp edges ground smooth.

I've seen an adult, supposedly a fairly intelligent one, damn near lose the sight in one eye fooling around with a squirt gun. I've seen another adult send a friend to the hospital with a damaged windpipe playing with a home made spud gun.

Never under estimate the ability of someone who lacks training and common sense, they can hurt themselves with a feather duster given ample time.

Now that we understand it's the shooter who's the primary "safety", the Glock is no more safe or unsafe than any other quality firearm.

[GlocksRock]

Glocks are no more safe or dangerous than a revolver. How safe do you find revolvers to be?

[brickeyee]

The glocks behave pretty much like a revolver. Pull trigger, gun goes bang.
I know of a number of police departments that chose glocks for just this reason. The only additional training was racking the slide on a failure to fire (hopefully a rare event with any gun).
Keep in mind that many LEOs regard the gun as a necessary evil (not the ones that come around here :) ) and will never even fire the darn thing at anyone for their entire career.

[Father Knows Best]

Glock handguns are suited to people trained and skilled in safe gun handling procedures, be they a newbie or an old timer.
Glocks are about as safe as a manufacturer can make a handgun without doing something stupid like requiring a Michael Jackson glove to fire the thing.
Rule 1; keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are aligned on the intended target.
Rule 2; keep you g.d. finger OFF the trigger until your sights are aligned on the intended target.
Rule 3; keep your g.d. finger off the g.d. trigger until your sights are aligned on the intended target.

So I guess the grip safety and manual safety on the 1911 are unnecessary, then, and should be done away with. We could all be carrying .45ACP 1911A1's cocked and unlocked, because they wouldn't have any means of being locked. It wouldn't unsafe, because they'll only go bang if you pull the trigger.

So why do all the experts recommend carrying 1911s cocked and locked, if no external safety is needed?

[Walt Sherrill]

So I guess the grip safety and manual safety on the 1911 are unnecessary, then, and should be done away with. We could all be carrying .45ACP 1911A1's cocked and unlocked, because they wouldn't have any means of being locked. It wouldn't unsafe, because they'll only go bang if you pull the trigger.Well, actually, the GRIP SAFETY was an afterthought, required by the US Army, and not part of John Browning's design. They did it to get the contract. You'll notice that his BHP doesn't have it. A lot of folks do not consider the grip safety an enhancement.

The Para LDAs are pretty much like you describe -- a .45 1911 with a more Glock-like approach. They don't seem any more dangerous to the shooter/carrier than most guns....

[Father Knows Best]

The Para LDAs are pretty much like you describe -- a .45 1911 with a more Glock-like approach. They don't seem any more dangerous to the shooter/carrier than most guns....

Actually, I carry a Para LDA every day. It does have a Glock-like trigger action, in that cycling of the slide actually cocks the mainspring, but there is a relatively long movement of the trigger required. The LDA's trigger arc is quite a bit longer than the Glock's.

But the LDA, just like a traditional 1911 and unlike a Glock, has an external manual safety.

My point is that it's overly simplistic to say something like "the only important safety is the one between your ears" or "all you need to do is keep your finger off the trigger." Those are certainly true, but miss the point. Human beings are not perfect. They make mistakes, particularly when stressed. They get careless. The design of a firearm can have a huge impact on how likely it is that it will be inadvertently discharged by a careless or stressed individual.

The traditional means of reducing the risk of an unintended discharge are: (1) a manual safety device; and (2) a long, heavy trigger pull. Either one of those works pretty well, though they each have their disadvantages. Glocks walk the line between them. They don't have a manual safety, and they don't have a long, heavy DA-like trigger pull, but the trigger pull is longer and heavier than a single-action pistol. Reasonable people can differ as to whether the Glock design provides enough protection against UDs in the hands of average users. Personally, I think they'd be better off with a manual safety. If users choose not to engage it, that's up to them.

[1911Tuner]

Howdy Father Knows,

The grip and thumb safeties are a bit more "necessary" on a SA pistol that only requires a short, 5-pound pull to fire. Note that double-action revolvers
don't have a manual safety because of the long, relatively heavy DA trigger.

Walt,

The 1911 prototypes originally had only the grip safety. The thumb safety was added at the behest of the U.S. Cavalry as a means to keep the troopers from shooting their own horses.

Bottom line...Never trust a mechanical safety to keep you from letting one go.
Those devices are there as a backup system when the primary system flames out...the primary being the gun handler. On the occasions that somebody has pointed a loaded gun at me...and I gently reminded them of their transgression...their lame remark about having the safety "on" made no difference whatsoever. I still reamed them out in royal fashion.

[Father Knows Best]

Howdy Father Knows,

The grip and thumb safeties are a bit more "necessary" on a SA pistol that only requires a short, 5-pound pull to fire. Note that double-action revolvers
don't have a manual safety because of the long, relatively heavy DA trigger.


That's exactly what I said. The question is whether manual safeties are "necessary" on a Glock, which is neither a SA nor a DA. It's a hybrid. It doesn't have the long, heavy trigger pull of a DA pistol, but it is longer and heavier than on a SA.

My opinion is that they are not "necessary" in the sense that not having them does not render the Glock "unsafe" or, to use the legal terminology for an unsafe product, "unreasonably dangerous." Still, the Glock would "more safe" if it gave the user the option of engaging a manual safety.

[JShirley]

No, the Glock would be less safe.

Now, though different in action, in principle, the Glock performs like a DAO revolver. Pull the trigger, and the weapon fires. It is "safer" to not add complexity to the weapon's operation.

There are already multiple safety devices to prevent discharge if the trigger is not pulled. It would be "more safe" in some ways for those uncomfortable with the Glock's function to not buy a Glock. In other ways, it would be less safe, if these potential users do not have one if/when needed- though of course, the option to buy something else always exists.

John

[BigG]

The safety is between the ears of the handler. The Glock is just as safe as the person handling it. The same as any firearm.

I haven't read it in a long time, but I got a chuckle thinking about the VAST orange sections of the Colt 45 Auto owners manual. It goes something like this - "Remember this is a firearm whose purpose is to discharge bullets. This it will do efficiently and safely as long as these instructions are followed..." :eek:

Or as somebody so aptly put it - "He should keep his booger hook off the bang switch." :neener:

[Lobotomy Boy]

For pocket carry, which I'm not completely comfortable with, a Glock wouldn't be as good a choice as a hammerless revolver. But for carrying IWB I prefer my Glock to my traditional-style autoloaders. My CZ75B doesn't have a decocker, and even though I'm extremely proficient at lowering the hammer to the half-cocked position, I don't like doing so inside my home. Also I'm not comfortable carrying cocked-and-locked without a grip safety. Even then, I wouldn't be as comfortable as I would with my Glock 21.

I suspect that "familiarity breeds complacency." LEOs and "experienced shooters" who handle pistols every day may be more likely to absent-mindedly get a finger in the triggerguard.

Yikes! If anyone fondles the trigger of a loaded gun he or she doesn't intend to discharge, that person can hardly be described as an "experienced shooter." I think Tuner had a better description: "fool."

[mfree]

Glock == unforgiving.

[Sinsaba]

Just the thought of a "mexican carry" with my G17 with a round chambered makes my A** pucker up

[Sinsaba]

mfree said ...


Glock == unforgiving.



That might be the best description/answer I've seen

[Walt Sherrill]

Tuner:

I know you know a heckuvalot more about 1911s than I do, but several sources that I've looked at say the following about the grip safety:


grip safety

A grip safety is a passive safety device that is most notably seen and used on the m1911 pistol. It is a spring loaded safety which, if not disengaged by firmly gripping the pistol properly, prevents the sear from moving and dropping the hammer even if the trigger is pulled.

The original design of Sam Colt for his autoloading pistol actually did not have this grip safety as he saw it as unnecessary and just needlessly added to the complexity of the pistol. It was the government that insisted that a passive safety device be incorporated into the design of the pistol that was to become the m1911...Now, SAM COLT (as mentioned above) is clearly not John Browning, but the mention of the grip safety being an ARMY requirement is one I've seen several different places, and I've NOT see reference to the thumb safety being an Army addition.

A number of other sites say something similar. This is from a Browning-oriented site that compares the 1911 and 1935 models:

The short grip tang of the Hi-Power means that some get the web of their shooting hand bit by the hammer spur or pinched between hammer and tang. This is something that would be so basic and simple to change at the factory that there is no reason it still exists in original form. Then again, I don't get bit, so it's no big deal to me. Improvement-wise, I'd say there is no winner here as Browning's original M1911 tang was no great shakes either.

The lack of a grip safety on the Hi-Power is an improvement. It was never needed. It was added to the original Browning 1911 design at the request of Army Ordnance.I'm sure I could find more -- and recognize that finding more doesn't make it right. But it does explain why I wrote as I did.

My error is clearly shared by a number of folks.

[xv920j]

Depends on your definition of safe.

If safe means idiot-proof then, no they are not safe. No gun is and Glock is somewhat less idiot-proof than some others.

If safe means " it won't hurt me unless I do something incredibly stupid" then Glock is as safe as any.

[mfree]

"Is gun! Of course is dangerous!"

[SRYnidan]

Lobotomy boy

<<<My CZ75B doesn't have a decocker, and even though I'm extremely proficient at lowering the hammer to the half-cocked position, I don't like doing so inside my home. Also I'm not comfortable carrying cocked-and-locked without a grip safety.>>>

Carrying a CZ75 with the hammer at half cock is not a real good idea. If on wants to carry it in the double action mode one should let the hammer all the way down on the slide. The half cock notch was never designed as a safe carry mode rather a way to catch the hammer if the main sear should fail or your thumb should slip while manually cocking the hammer?

[Werewolf]

I'm not a huge fan of Glock (I hate the trigger) but as far as being safe goes IMO they rank right near the top.

A Glock will not fire unless the trigger is pulled!

It's that simple. You can drop it barrel side down or up and it won't fire. You can throw it up against a brick wall and it won't fire. You can drop it off a 10 story building and it won't fire. In short the trigger must be pulled to make a Glock fire (and in my experience with the Glock 22 I owned it goes bang everytime the trigger is pulled when there's a round in the chamber - everytime).

Of course if the main safety (the one between the ears) isn't engaged then any firearm becomes unsafe no matter how many mechanical impediments designed to defeat fools are placed on a weapon.

[Sistema1927]

My experience:

Glocks never go bang unless you pull the trigger.
Glocks always go bang when you pull the trigger.

As I read elsewhere recently: "Keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you have your target in your sights."

[Walt Sherrill]

SRYnidan wrote:

Carrying a CZ75 with the hammer at half cock is not a real good idea. If on wants to carry it in the double action mode one should let the hammer all the way down on the slide. The half cock notch was never designed as a safe carry mode rather a way to catch the hammer if the main sear should fail or your thumb should slip while manually cocking the hammer?You would be correct if we were discussing an older (pre-B) CZ-75 model, but the gun in question was a newer 75B. With the newer CZ-75B models, its a non issue.

The newer "B" guns have a firing pin safety which keeps the gun from firing unless the trigger is pulled fully to the rear. Dropping the hammer or dropping the gun, or having it slammed with a sledge hammer, won't make the firing pin go forward, unless you break the firing pin block.

The design is such that ALL of the decocker versions of the gun (P-01, PCR, 40P, 75BD) decock to the half-cock notch, and that's the way they're intended to be carried. The non-decocker models are functionally the same and have a WIDER sear and both hammer hooks active; the decocker models use only one hook and sear has been narrowed to accomodate the decocker mechanism.

[Father Knows Best]

JShirley, you said:No, the Glock would be less safe.

Now, though different in action, in principle, the Glock performs like a DAO revolver. Pull the trigger, and the weapon fires. It is "safer" to not add complexity to the weapon's operation.

So by that logic, my 1911 would be "more safe" if I removed the thumb and grip safeties, right? Should we all be removing the safeties from our 1911's?

I'm anticipating that your response will be to say that the 1911 is single action, whereas the Glock is double action (it "performs like a DAO revolver", to use your words). The Glock, however, is not a double action revolver, or even a DAO autoloader. True double actions have much longer and heavier trigger pulls than the Glock system. Most Glocks (excluding the "New York Trigger" models) have trigger weights in the 6-8 pound range. That's MUCH lighter than any stock DA/SA (in DA mode) or DAO autoloader I've ever seen. It's a little heavier than most SA triggers, but not by much.

In fact, the Glock system is much more like a SA than a DAO. There is no second strike capability. The cycling of the slide precocks the striker, leaving the trigger only to finish the cocking. That's why a Glock trigger is so much lighter and shorter than a DAO.

I think we all agree that no manual safety is needed or desirable on a DAO autoloader or a double action revolver. The long, heavy trigger pull required to discharge it is enough to minimize the probably of NDs.

Everyone seems to agree (even you, I think), however, that a manual safety is desirable on a SA autoloader, despite the fact that a quality SA also won't discharge unless the trigger is pulled. Why? Because we all recognize that the probability of an ND is too high if a SA pistol is carried cocked and without a safety engaged. No one would ever advocate carrying cocked and NOT locked.

Since the Glock isn't quite a SA, and isn't quite a DAO, it's a fair question as to whether it should be carried pre-cocked (which it always is unless you pulled the trigger on an empty chamber), with a live round in the chamber, and with no manual safety engaged. There are plenty of reports of unintentional discharges of Glocks, apparently because people got their fingers where they didn't belong. If the trigger pull was longer and heavier, like a DAO pistol, those NDs may well not have happened. If a manual safety was engaged, like on a cocked and locked SA, those NDs may well not have happened. Glock doesn't give you that choice, however.

Don't get me wrong -- I like Glocks. They're solid, reliable, reasonably accurate and inexpensive. The controls are as simple as can be, which is worth a lot in a high-stress environment. I have a Glock now, and have owned quite a few others in the past. I love the feel of the Glock trigger. I just wonder how long it will be before someone who is injured as a result of a ND manages to convince a jury that "safe action" is a misnomer, and that any pistol with that light of a trigger and no external safety device is "an accident waiting to happen." I can guaranty you that no jury will ever accept the argument that it's the shooter's fault for failing to keep his/her finger off the trigger.

[Island Beretta]

me think the point is better stated as 'Glocks are not idiot-proofed'...but even for the 'idiot-proofed' guns yu can bet ya last dollar somewhere,somehow, someone is going to have a ND and blame the whole entire world, and everything around him/her except him/her.. :rolleyes:

hey anyone got any of the Glocks with the lock in the handle..it should help but then again.. ;)

[cosmonick]

Knowing your equipment well and using safe practices is what will avoid accidents. We've all heard it said, "treat every gun like it's loaded". That's great advice, as long as we always apply it. To me, that means don't point a gun at something you don't want to shoot and keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. If you apply this to a Glock, a 1911 and a Raging Bull, you'll find they are equally "safe".

For me, external safeties are cumbersome. I've always preferred Sigs and Glocks because they have no external safety. One "bonus" of safety for the Sig is the long first trigger pull - although I don't feel like the Glock has a super short first pull, just a super short reset. But that long trigger pull comes with the negative of having to master 2 trigger pulls. Just like learning to turn your safety off before your first shot takes a lot of practice to make instinctive. All safety systems are a compromise.

For me, simplicity is very important in a CCW or a combat style pistol. For some the Glock is over-simplification.

The fact is, those of us who like the Glock trigger system, like it because it suits us. Those who don't should, and usually do, just opt for something that suits them :)

Mo

[Chris Rhines]

My Glock 35 has a trigger pull weight of under two pounds. Somehow, I've not had the good grace to fire an ND, despite the opinions of many that I should have... :D

- Chris

[orionengnr]

One. MrHuckins says, "I feel the trigger action makes it fairly easy to have an AD when carrying with a round in the chamber."
Then he quotes the Four Rules...Refresh my memory..What does Rule #4 say, anyway? Oh yeah, I thought so....Keep your what...off the...what?

Two. I am not a Glock fiend (although I own one). I am an HK P7 fiend, although that has little to do with the current conversation...or does it? The P7 has no external safety, a short SA trigger pull, and enjoys a fanatical following...aaah, maybe there is something here.

Okay, for the bonus point, I also own a Para LDA. Although it has an external safety, I have never used it. I treat it like a my P7, or my Glock, or my DA revolvers (AND, MUST I SAY IT AGAIN, OBSERVE RULE #4) and it is a non- issue. Or am I over-simplifying things?

[JohnKSa]

there have been reports of ADs due to the trigger being accidently pulledThe following is a list of pistols of which this cannot be said.






















What, you were actually thinking there were some kinds of pistols that are AD proof? :D

[BluesBear]

Just because a discharge is unintentional does not make it accidential.


The original design of Sam Colt for his autoloading pistol...After reading this how can I believe anything else the buffoon writing had to say. Sam Colt was long dead before there were ANY autoloading pistols and therefore had nothing to do with their design.

Well, actually, the GRIP SAFETY was an afterthought, required by the US Army, and not part of John Browning's design. They did it to get the contract. But many (most) of his solo designs, dating back to 1903 DO have a grip safety. As a matter of fact Browning's personal 1910 model .45 (which is identical to those submitted to the Army for testing) has a grip safety but does NOT have a thumb safety.
Even the Model 1909 as submitted to the Army had a grip safety.

The Army had tested 9mm Luger pistols which had grip safties. The Army didn't like the 9mm cartridge :rolleyes: but from then on they wanted a pistol with a grip safety.

You'll notice that his BHP doesn't have it."His BHP"?! :scrutiny:
Only a small portion of the P35 is 100% JMB since he was long dead by the time it finally saw the light of day.
Browning's 1923 prototype patent illustrations for what would eventually be "improved" and manufactured as the P35 (BHP) show neither a grip NOR a thumb safety AND it was striker fired AND the frame rails were on the INSIDE! As we all know the P35 has always had a thumb safety AND a hammer and the slide is mounted outside the frame just like a 1911. So it's not really 'HIS" BHP is it?

Come to think of it, the only pistols, that I can think of, designed by Browning without a thumb safety are the large frame, external hammer, .38acp/.45acp 1902-1907 "sporting and military" models co-designed with Colt. The inertia firing pin was their only safety.

[vito]

I think a 1911 with the safety in the handgrip is much safer, since accidentally pulling the trigger alone will not cause it to fire. But personally, if I carry a DA auto I carry in without a round in the chamber. The time needed to rack a round is, in my opinion, a reasonable trade-off for the safety of not having any possibility of an accidental discharge of any kind.

[Walt Sherrill]

I don't dispute any of the comments you made above -- even noting in my original response, that "Sam Colt" was clearly wrong. Several other sites I've visited since then have also stated (wrongly, it appears) that the grip safety was an ARMY requirement, not an original Browning feature. I know that doesn't make it so, but it could lead others to think that was the case.

I'm not trying to disagree with either you or Tuner -- just explaining that its easy to see why someone might be misinfored or misled on this subject.

(And, as your own comments indicate, the grip safety wasn't there on the original High Power design. And I agree that the Saive was instrumental in getting the gun into the form we know, today.

It would be interesting, however, to see how it might have turned out had Browning lived -- as he didn't need help with the 1911...)

[Master Blaster]

The poster wondered why Glock calls it a "safe action" when there have been reports of ADs due to the trigger being accidently pulled.

That is not an AD its a ND negligent discharge :)

The only problem with the Glock is the lack of training and care excersized by its users.

One issue I have seen that has caused a few deaths by glock is the fact that you need to pull the trigger to disengage the trigger bar from the striker so you can remove the slide from the frame . Some times police officers and others forget to clear the chamber when they remove the magazine prior to cleaning. When they pull the trigger to strip the gun, they are pointing it at ther stomach because of the small difficult to actuate striping buttons, this has resulted in a few ND's while cleaning.

But again, there is a major violation of Gun safety rules for this to happen.

The thing I don't really understand is the purpose of the grip safety on a 1911, it only blocks the trigger not the sear, where the thumb safety actually blocks the sear preventing a mechanical failure from causing the gun to fire. The only "advantage" of the grip safety I can see is that it allows you to twirl the gun on your index finger with the hammer cocked chamber loaded and the thumb safety off (not a good idea), I don't really see its purpose. JMHO YMMV.

[Walt Sherrill]

But personally, if I carry a DA auto I carry in without a round in the chamber. The time needed to rack a round is, in my opinion, a reasonable trade-off for the safety of not having any possibility of an accidental discharge of any kind.The underlying assumption, here, is that you'll always have use of both hands and the time needed to rack the slide -- I'm not sure that's a safe assumption, particularly if an assailant is up close and personal, and trying to disarm you... or you're with others, and you're trying to do things to keep them out of the line of fire, etc.

(At our IDPA club, we try to incorporate courses of fire in our matches that present these sort of unexpected scenarios, and you'd be surprised just how hard it might be to do what you propose if, for example, you're simulating carrying a young infant...)

I'd argue that you should pick a properly-safe DA gun, and carry it with chamber loaded. Nearly all now have firing pin blocks, so that dropping or striking the weapon won't cause an accidental discharge.

Then a one-handed presentation is not likely to cause problems for you (rather than your opponent.)

[medmo]

Just adding a some kerosene to the knocked over lantern.....

Safe Action to Whom??

A child? An agressor who just ripped it off your belt in a struggle? There are some valid reasons for having a safety. If you are in a life or death struggle and for some reason you no longer control your side arm... wouldn't it be great to get a 2 to 8 second repreive while the dumb SOB stared at it and tried to figure out how to make it go "bang" while pointing it at you? I know there is never a justification why small children should ever come across a loaded pistol that has been left unsupervised or unattended. Unfortunately, it does happen. What is the probability of a tot cranking a round off after unintentionally activating a Safe Action Auto, (aka pulling the trigger)? What about with another pistol design with a thumb safety or grip safety?

[Walt Sherrill]

Its not really kerosene. Many double-action guns, including S&Ws don't have safeties. SIG DAO guns don't. That little lever is conspicuously missing. Revolvers don't.

With CZs, the safety doesn't work if the hammer is down. So it just takes a trigger pull to activate the firing sequence.

The magazine safety of some guns might act as a further safety feature -- as in a struggle with an attacker, the owner might be able to release the mag.

But everything I've read says that before you find yourself in THAT sort of situation, "retention" training is what's needed, not a safety lever.

[Lobotomy Boy]

Walt makes some good points. It seems that the problems Medmo brings up are not problems because the gun is a Glock, but rather because the gun is a gun.

[Ash]

I would say the Glock is less safe than a DAO revolver or auto in that the trigger is so light. It is much less forgiving of brush, keys, or in a scuffle than the previous two. The margins of error are much more narrow, just as the learning curve is much smaller. A DA auto loaded with the hammer down is also safer than the Glock. Really, they are safer and to say otherwise is ignoring the facts.

However, a DA or SA that has fired once is much more dangerous than a Glock. That trigger has very little distance and much less effort required to fire than the Glock's trigger. After firing once, one seldom puts his auto on Safe, especially when the bad guy is in your face. As such, the Glock would be defacto safer than the DA or SA. However, the Revolver or DAO auto remains safer than the Glock in that situation.

Is Glock unsafe? No, I wouldn't say that. Is it less safe? Yes, as a general rule, especially considering the holster is considered part of the safety. Is it less forgiving? Yes, for the same reason above. Is it dangerous? Of course, like all firearms.

Are there situations were Glock is safer? Also yes.

The safest handgun would be the revolver or DAO auto. The same things that would cause these to fire will cause a Glock to fire, and the Glock will fire easier than the other two due to the lighter trigger. The trigger safety is not really a safety because most things that will pull the trigger will already have disabled that safety. Nobody should argue that something might pull a revolver trigger on the edge and make it fire that woudln't have made the Glock fire. That is more far fetched than some of excuses about Glocks danger.

None of this is meant to state that Glocks are not reliable nor are not generally safe. But, all things considered, the Glock is not as safe as a revolver or DAO pistol. Sure, none of these will fire unless the trigger is pulled. The only question is how easy is it to pull that trigger.

Ash

[medmo]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that Glocks are "problem" guns. I was trying to represent the point as to why some folks choose different designed guns rather than Glock type systems or guns that don't have manual safeties.

My brother almost shot my father in 1960 when he was three years old. Dad came home from work and left his NYPD issued Official Police up on a shelf. He fell asleep on the couch while "watching" my brother. My brother managed to get the gun down from a shelf and crank a round off missing the couch he was sleeping on by a few feet. After that Dad unloaded his guns when he came home.

[bglimpse]

Safe